Everyone using the same client is a huge risk to the network.
One bad update, a single mistake, and Bitcoin network could become compromised.
Why are you against diversity of clients?
It really does not make sense to be against decentralisation, like, that's the whole fucking point of Bitcoin.
No central bank. Decentralised.
Actually Satoshi was also against "diversity of clients".
“I don’t believe a second, compatible implementation of Bitcoin will ever be a good idea. So much of the design depends on all nodes getting exactly identical results in lockstep that a second implementation would be a menace to the network.” ~ (Satoshi Nakamoto).
Now the question is which client.
Pandoras box is open. Too late to close it now.
Interesting. Ty
We've had our test case... and it was indeed not a good idea... for the diverging implementation (i.e. Bitcoin Cash).
This is why neither Knots nor subsequent versions of Core have any incentive to diverge from consensus.
To clarify, bcash was a hard fork. Divergent node clients is an entirely different thing. I don't recall we've ever had any diverging clients to any material degree until knots. Closest thing is having some clients updating at different times. We don't definitively know, based on history, if diverging clients will cause problems.
Different consensus rules vs 99% core with a few patches that are directed to mempool policy are not the same thing. And I don't agree with this idea of putting Satoshi or Adam Back on a pedistal like they are some kind of God that we have to take their word as gospel. They are people. You are able to still take all information for youself, think critically, and come to your own conclusions.
Ty! nostr:nprofile1qqsgthcq5tm2jxz9x4xg6tvlh26qq2actdpztwh2kc86lvjc03gr36spzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumn0wd68ytnzv9hxgqgcwaehxw309aex2mrp0yhxummnw3exjmm59e3k7mgndzg4j
👆 this!
There is WAY more 'systemic' risk in having only a single point of influence capable of making unilateral changes. The more clients capable of making changes only with respect to their de minimis sphere of influence, the better.
Appeal to authority notwithstanding, the results are in: a second implementation that doesn't provide identical results is indeed a bad idea... for the second implementation (see Bitcoin Cash).
